This map shows the geographic impact of Şenay Purzer's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Şenay Purzer with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Şenay Purzer more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Şenay Purzer. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Şenay Purzer. The network helps show where Şenay Purzer may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Şenay Purzer
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Şenay Purzer.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Şenay Purzer based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Şenay Purzer. Şenay Purzer is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Jablokow, Kathryn, et al.. (2020). A Critical Review of Measures of Innovativeness. Papers on Engineering Education Repository (American Society for Engineering Education). 24.41.1–24.41.19.6 indexed citations
Fila, Nicholas, Justin L. Hess, & Şenay Purzer. (2020). Instilling new ways of understanding the innovation process: evidence-based heuristics from student innovation experiences. International journal of engineering education. 36(2). 633–649.4 indexed citations
Hynes, Morgan, et al.. (2017). Systematic review of research in p-12 engineering education from 2000–2015. International journal of engineering education. 33(1). 453–462.28 indexed citations
10.
Hess, Justin L., Nicholas Fila, & Şenay Purzer. (2016). The relationship between empathic and innovative tendencies among engineering students. International journal of engineering education. 32(3). 1236–1249.17 indexed citations
11.
Douglas, Kerrie, et al.. (2016). Reliability, validity, and fairness: a content analysis of assessment development publications in major engineering education journals. International journal of engineering education. 32(5). 1960–1971.15 indexed citations
12.
Jablokow, Kathryn, et al.. (2016). The characteristics of engineering innovativeness: a cognitive mapping and review of instruments. International journal of engineering education. 32(1). 64–83.13 indexed citations
13.
Fila, Nicholas, et al.. (2016). Engineering students’ utilization of empathy during a non-immersive conceptual design task. International journal of engineering education. 32(3). 1336–1348.15 indexed citations
14.
Hess, Justin L., Nicholas Fila, Şenay Purzer, & Johannes Ströbel. (2015). Exploring the Relationship between Empathy and Innovation amongst Engi- neering Students.7 indexed citations
15.
Fila, Nicholas & Şenay Purzer. (2014). The relationship between team gender diversity, idea variety, and potential for design innovation. International journal of engineering education. 30(6). 1405–1418.16 indexed citations
16.
Krause, Stephen, et al.. (2010). Effect of pedagogy on conceptual change in an introductory materials science course. International journal of engineering education. 26(4). 869–879.14 indexed citations
17.
Purzer, Şenay, et al.. (2009). What lies beneath the Materials Science and Engineering misconceptions of undergraduate engineering students.2 indexed citations
Baker, Dale, Şenay Purzer, Sharon E. Robinson Kurpius, Stephen Krause, & Chell Roberts. (2007). Infusing design, engineering, and technology into K-12 teachers’ practice. International journal of engineering education. 23(5). 884–893.5 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.